March 25, 2009

DETROIT -- The Michigan Coalition for Gender Equality expressed deep disappointment today regarding changes to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM)policies that will eliminate reimbursements for gender reassignment surgeries for new customers. This change was approved by Michigan’s Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation without any opportunity for public comment or input.

“We are concerned that BCBSM underestimates the profound impact of these medically necessary procedures,” said Andre Wilson of MCGE. “Gender reassignment surgeries can be a critical part of the transition process and these new exclusions will place many transgender individuals and their families at real risk.”

The American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) have called for coverage by public and private insurers of all medically necessary procedures for the treatment of gender dysphoria or transsexualism, including gender reassignment surgeries. Treatment delays or denials for such services often lead to more serious and expensive health problems, states the AMA, which has also called exclusions of transgender-related services discriminatory. WPATH affirms that gender reassignment surgeries are “cost-effective, not cost-prohibitive” and can be “essential to achieving well-being for the transsexual patient.”

“Many people are unaware of the distress accompanying gender dysphoria and of the damage caused by insurance exclusions,” said Maxine Thome Executive Director of NASW Michigan. “Research shows the effectiveness of treatment, and Social Workers see the difference firsthand. Access to services brings dramatic improvements in health status, as well as increased employability and social acceptance.”

MCGE members learned of the BCBSM changes from the Detroit Free Press which reported, “The changes do not affect 170,000 customers already in individual Blue Cross plans or with Blue Cross insurance through their employer. But they will affect thousands losing insurance as employers drop coverage or lay off staff.”

“Excluding medically necessary gender reassignment surgeries endangers patients' health which strains the entire health care system, driving costs up for everyone,” said Jay Kaplan of the ACLU of Michigan. “We urge both BCBSM and the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation to reconsider this benefit change.”

March 24, 2009

Please contact your state representative and ask them to support HB 4131 (the "Second Parent Adoption Bill".) Representative Alma Wheeler-Smith, Democrat from Ypsilanti Township, has introduced the Second Parent Adoption Bill for the 2009-2010 legislative session. The bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary committee. A public hearing is scheduled for April 22, 2009.

Michigan courts have been largely unwilling to allow two unmarried people to jointly adopt a child. In practical terms this means that children born to, or adopted by, gay and lesbian parents can only have one legal parent. Such an unjust arrangement has far reaching consequences if the legal parent dies or the couple breaks up. The Second Parent Adoption Bill will allow every such child in the state of Michigan to have two legal parents.

Below is list of House Judiciary Committee members:

Mark S. Meadows (D), Committee Chair, 69th District

Ellen Cogen Lipton (D), Majority Vice-Chair, 27th District

Lisa Brown (D), 39th District

Bob Constan (D), 16th District

Marc R. Corriveau (D), 20th District

Andy Coulouris (D), 95th District

Andrew J. Kandrevas (D), 13th District

Bettie Cook Scott (D), 3rd District

Rebekah Warren (D), 53rd District

Tonya Schuitmaker (R), Minority Vice-Chair, 80th District

Justin Amash (R), 72nd District

Joseph Haveman (R), 90th District

Rick Jones (R), 71st District

Eileen Kowall (R), 44th District

Tory Rocca (R), 30th District

Please contact your state representative even if they are not on the House Judiciary Committee as we are confident that HB 4131 will pass out of committee and be sent to the full House for a vote. It is extremely important that every state representative is contacted and asked to support this legislation. To that end, please forward this request to your friends and family and ask them to contact their state representative as well.

March 17, 2009

If you live in Kalamazoo, you have 10 days left in order to make your voice and your opinion known regarding the anti-discrimination ordinance for that city.

Here's how you can comment on the city of Kalamazoo's plan to propose a second anti-discrimination ordinance aimed at housing, public accommodation and employment protections for gays, lesbians and transgender individuals.

Phone: Call 552-6089. This is the city's temporary hotline for recorded comments on the issue.

In addition to making general comments, responders are asked to answer these three questions:

1. A city of Kalamazoo ordinance currently prohibits discrimination regarding the sale or rental of property. How would an expansion of the ordinance to address discrimination in employment and public accommodation affect you?

2. The city of Kalamazoo ordinance addressing housing discrimination prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person's religion, race, color, national origin or sex. How would broadening the categories of protection to include a person's sexual orientation or gender identity specifically affect you?

3. Should these proposed expansions of the city ordinance addressing discrimination be approved by the city commission? Why or why not?

February 23, 2009

(Lansing, Michigan) Michigan courts can oversee a custody dispute between lesbian parents who adopted in Illinois even though Michigan doesn’t formally recognize gay relationships, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court ruled 2-1 on Friday that the U.S. Constitution requires state courts to recognize Diane Giancaspro and Lisa Congleton as adoptive parents. It reversed a trial judge who said Michigan’s 2004 voter-approved gay marriage ban kept her from enforcing the women’s parental rights.

“The only relevant consideration in this matter is each individual party’s established relationship as an adoptive parent with the children, not their relationship with each other,”

Judges Alton Davis and Stephen Borrello wrote.

Judge Kurtis Wilder dissented because he said Giancaspro didn’t show documents authenticating the Illinois adoption.

“My concern is the well-being of my children. I want them to live in a place where their rights are protected,” Giancaspro said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and the New York-based gay rights group Lambda Legal.

An attempt to reach Congleton was unsuccessful because her phone number was disconnected. The couple’s three children were living with Giancaspro, the ACLU said.

The couple adopted from China while living in Illinois, and the children began living with them in 2003. But the couple’s relationship ended in 2007 after they moved to southwestern Michigan.

Giancaspro sued for custody under Michigan law, but Congleton said the case should be dismissed because neither parent has rights since the state constitution doesn’t allow the recognition of domestic partnerships. The couple never married.

Berrien County Circuit Judge Mabel Johnson Mayfield ruled for Congleton in September 2007, recognizing the validity of the adoption. But the judge said Michigan’s amendment banning gay marriage kept her from enforcing either woman’s parental rights.

The appeals court disagreed with the trial judge and sent the case back to her for a child custody hearing.

The ruling Friday prompted American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn to call for a ballot measure that would ban gay adoptions in the state.

“What’s best for any child is to have both a mother and a father who are married,” Glenn said.

He said Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi and Utah have bans against gay adoptions.

The ACLU said it was thrilled with the appeals court’s decision.

“Today gay parents and their children can rest easier knowing that they again have access to Michigan courts,” said Kary Moss, the Michigan executive director of ACLU.

Gay couples in Michigan were allowed to jointly adopt children in Washtenaw County but the practice stopped in 2002 after the county’s chief judge said such adoptions violated state law.

January 25, 2009

For the second year in a row, Rainbow Law Center will participate in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Creating Change. This is the 21st annual Creating Change sponsored by The Task Force and it will be Denise's 4th time in attendance.

From The Task Force's website is this description of Creating Change:

Each year the conference is held in a different region of the United States and attracts 2,500+ participants from within and outside of the LGBT community. It's is well known for providing a unique environment where activists and leaders come together from diverse places and backgrounds to create a community that is both strengthening and inspiring to the participants.

Creating Change is for you if you are: an activist and organizer in your community, campus or workplace; a board member, staff member or leader in a LGBT organization, community center or foundation; an elected or appointed official; a change agent for justice, freedom & equality for all. In other words, Creating Change has something for everyone!

Both Mary and Denise attended the conference last year, when it was held in Detroit. However, only Denise will attend this year, allowing Rainbow Law Center to both expand its knowledge and understanding of best practices for furthering the goal of equality for the LGBT community and still serve its clients' needs here at home.

If you are a client of Rainbow Law Center, you should not hesitate to call as your needs remain our top priority.

January 02, 2009

Below are some facts and statistics regarding Rainbow Law Center's practice, specifically related to the year 2008:

During 2008 Rainbow Law Center took on nearly a hundred new clients. Of those, approximately one-quarter came to us to assist them with Estate Planning services, including wills and trust agreements, and to prepare the legal documents so necessary in the LGBT community to protect the rights of their families – rights that naturally accrue to their married heterosexual counterparts – such as the right to visit each other in the hospital, and to make medical and financial decisions for a partner while he or she is incapacitated, and to be appointed guardian of their children.

Another quarter of Rainbow Law Center’s new clients this past year were in the area of family law, where we assisted clients with divorce, child custody, spousal and child support issues. Rainbow Law Center has represented and successfully defended lesbian and gay clients against charges of being unfit parents, merely as a consequence of their sexual orientation. Many “straight” attorneys believe they can use our client’s sexual orientation or gender identity as a weapon in order to obtain a legal advantage; Rainbow Law Center makes sure they do not.

Other aspects of Rainbow Law Center’s practice are related to the lack of legal recognition afforded to LGBT relationships. In one noteworthy case, Rainbow Law Center was able to win a court ruling that both clients – a lesbian couple – should be considered legal parents of their new child, despite the antipathy in this state toward “second-parent” adoption. Rainbow Law Center has assisted clients trying to begin their families; drafting donor insemination agreements, counseling clients considering adoption, and drafting Co-Parenting and Domestic Partnership Agreements that memorialize the parties’ intentions with respect to how they will conduct themselves as a family while they remain together and in the event of the partnership’s termination.

Given the reality that the LGBT community is susceptible to the same high divorce rate that occurs in heterosexual marriages, but that such clients have no access to divorce courts, Rainbow Law Center has helped several clients in separating from their partners, including negotiating and drafting separation agreements, and the re-titling of assets. Rainbow Law Center has also represented them in litigation when the parties cannot reach agreement on property and other issues.

Mary has significant experience in employment law, and Rainbow Law Center has represented clients in cases involving employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in several cases negotiating settlements with the employer that put compensation in our clients' pockets without having to resort to the cost of litigation. We have also represented transgender clients in their quest to have their name and gender legally changed to conform to their identities. Rainbow Law Center is working with other lawyers and organizations in this state and nationally to advance transgender rights, and Denise has spoken to both state and national groups about this issue.

Rainbow Law Center is also “straight-friendly”, and has represented many straight clients with family law and estate planning issues. When called upon, Rainbow Law Center also handles a variety of more mundane legal matters, such as consumer issues, real property, and probate matters. They do not allow this work to detract from their mission, but it helps to support their primary work.

November 15, 2008

We had our Prop 8 rally in Detroit today. Brett Beckerson, Youth Initiatives Coordinator with Triangle Foudation, and Bashar Makhay, from Affirmations, were the local organizers, in the broader nationwide rally - JoinTheImpact.com -- started in an email exchange between a handful of friends (no, you're never to small to make a difference). They did an amazing job. Brett led us, he encouraged us, he chanted for us (I wonder how his voice survived).

We had approximately 200 people show up. This is significant for a couple of reasons. First, it's a Saturday. Second -- this was *DETROIT*, and NOT Ann Arbor where you expect the queers to rally. Third, and most significant, it was cold. And windy. And raining. A steady rain fell during the entire 90 minute march, demonstration, and speechifying. Still, people stayed.

The police were there, but gave us no hassle -- beyond an occasional screech to clear the crosswalk so that cars could get through. We had so many people there, that we couldn't all cross the street duing a walk cycle!

After we marched -- to chants of "2 4 6 8 Love does not discriminate!"; "Gay Straight Black White - Marriage is a CIVIL right"; and "What do we want? EQUALITY When do we want it? NOW!" -- we held a rally in front of the "Spirit of Detroit" statue at City Hall. Everyone that wanted to speak got a chance.

Jan Stevenson and Susan were there -- 14 years together, and owners/publishers of Between the Lines, our LGBT friendly newspaper; Leslie Ann Thompson, Exec. Director of Affirmations, and her wife were there and eloquently reminded us of the money that Michigan is losing to Canada (just across the river from where we stood) as we trek across the border to exchange our vows. She called on those that were married in Canada (such as Mary and me) or elsewhere to come forward and put a face on the discrimination. Jim Rasor and his partner of 5 years was there. Jim reminded us all to be out and proud and to report incidents of discrimination -- despite the laws against our families there still are things we can do to protect ourselves. I saw Carrie Copeland there. I saw my friend Andrew Hinkle there. Ric Beatitie was there. I think I even spotted Leo Romo So many that I knew; so many more that I did not know. Many more people spoke. Veterans spoke, ministers and preachers spoke, straight allies spoke. Partners that had been together for decades spoke.

And we stood there in the rain, wind, and cold and cheered. We cheered for the love we have for each other, we cheered for the community we developed, we cheered for the possibility that one day our opposition would see that they had nothing to fear in granting us our civil rights. We cheered for the courage each person showed.

June 02, 2008

Yesterday was June 1, the beginning of Pride month here in the U.S. and the day of Motor City Pride held each year in Ferndale (and sponsored by Triangle Foundation).

Rainbow Law Center had its first booth at Motor City Pride this year. We tried not to make it too elaborate. Instead we wanted to offer real help to clients and potential clients. Consequently, we did not offer give-aways and we did not attempt to collect names and contact information in order to build a mailing list.

What we did, instead, was offer free 15 minute legal consultations to whomever asked. We helped out a half-dozen individuals or couples with real-life problems, free of charge.

In addition, we developed some marketing-oriented handouts which we hoped would also be educational and we handed out over 50 packets of information to people. That seems like a small number when you think about 30,000 attendees, but it was very good from our perspective. Copies of our handouts are here:

May 15, 2008

Rainbow Law Center joins the rest of the country who values fairness and equality in applauding the decision of the California Supreme Court today in the "In re: Marriage Cases" when it said:

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation,"

"...we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand."

Rainbow Law Center also extends its congratulations to Shannon Minter, lead counsel and litigator, who argued the case before the Supreme Court. Mr. Minter is the Legal Director for the National Center of Lesbian Rights and is one of the most successful and recognized transgender attorneys in the country. He serves on the boards of Equality California and the Transgender Law & Policy Institute.

Finally, it seems only fitting that this decision should come down so close in time to the passing of Mildred Loving, the woman whose case before the US Supreme Court struck down the last of the anti-miscegenation laws, laws so reviled today that young people can hardly believe they used to be on the books. Perhaps in another generation or two people will have that same reaction to the laws barring same-sex couples from marrying.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about. --Mildred Loving, June 12, 2007

May 08, 2008

Rainbow Law Center joins the rest of the people and organizations in Michigan who have expressed their disappointment and indeed outrage at the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday that the so-called Marriage Amendment prohibits public employers from offering health insurance benefits to same-sex partners or their dependents.

The "Marriage Amendment" (Const 1963, art1, § 25, provides: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."